Committee hears bill to authorize jail‑based fitness‑to‑proceed evaluations amid provider and cost concerns

Representative James Reavis, sponsor of House Bill 2 36, told the House Health and Human Services committee the bill would codify an existing Department of Public Health and Human Services practice allowing fitness‑to‑proceed evaluations to take place in detention centers or state prisons that meet department standards.

"Our Montana and U.S. constitutions require that someone be fit to proceed before a criminal case can be completed," Reavis said, and the bill aims to keep evaluations timely by permitting qualified psychiatrists, psychologists or advanced practice nurses to evaluate defendants where they are when appropriate rather than transporting them to the Galen Forensic Mental Health Facility.

Supporters said the practice reduces delays. Matt Kuntz, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness for Montana, said the measure returns to earlier practices that reduced solitary confinement and helped jails and courts manage people with severe mental illness. "This is a return to how things were done in an earlier day," Kuntz said in support.

Opponents and county officials warned HB 2 36 could shift costs and responsibilities to local jails and does not address the chief cause of delays: limited restoration capacity at the state forensic unit. David Carlson of Disability Rights Montana said jail settings cannot provide the multi‑day therapeutic observation sometimes needed for complex cases and that such cases should go to a specialized facility for 60‑day observation. "We should keep that 60‑day commitment for those people who are really hard to determine," Carlson said.

Missoula County Attorney Matt Jennings told the committee that while short, jail‑appropriate evaluations already occur locally, the backlog in the system stems from the scarcity of restoration placements at the Montana State Hospital forensic unit (Galen). He said Missoula conducts routine evaluations in the community but that restoration placements can take nine to 12 months. "The primary cause of the backlog [is] restoration of competency," Jennings said.

Jennifer Root, a jail commander appearing for MSPOA, said local jails already spend substantial sums on medications, housing and staffing and that facilities lack capacity and clinical providers to provide extended observation or treatment. She noted a detainee who was evaluated locally remained in the jail and was approximately number 54 on the wait list for the state hospital.

Department of Public Health and Human Services counsel Chad Parker told lawmakers the department has deployed teams and telemedicine and has completed dozens of community evaluations since launching the program; he said the department maintains a small roster of deployable providers and is working to expand capacity. Parker also said the department would be responsible for writing rules that establish standards for when and how evaluations can be done in detention settings.

Committee members pressed several issues: how to distinguish short evaluations appropriate for on‑site or telemedicine assessments from longer evaluations requiring 60‑day observation, when state prisons would be covered, and how rulemaking would interact with the Department of Corrections and county operations. Reavis said the bill uses permissive language ("may") and that he is open to amendments to clarify short‑term evaluations and avoid imposing unfunded mandates on counties.

The committee closed the hearing with procedural announcements that HB 2 36 is tentatively scheduled for executive action, and Reavis said he would work on clarifying language and cross‑references. No formal action or vote occurred during the hearing.

The next procedural step is the committee's executive action calendar, where members may offer amendments before the bill advances or is held.